A wave of lawsuits have been filed in courts around the nation since the Supreme Court in June overturned much of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s ban on same-sex marriage. The rulings effectively opened the floodgates to what has been a gradual push for marriage equality.

“The more people are winning, the more people are stepping up and wanting to become involved and move forward after,” says Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry. “The more we make it real — the more places gay people share in the freedom to marry — the more people see with their own eyes families helped and no one hurt.”

On Aug. 1, Minnesota and Rhode Island became the 12th and 13th states to allow gay marriage. New Jersey followed suit on Oct. 21, after a judge overturned the state’s ban and Governor Chris Christie dropped his appeal of the ruling. That means same-sex marriage is now legal in 14 states and Washington, D.C. Illinois is set to become the 15th state to approve gay marriage after lawmakers passed a bill on Nov. 5 and Governor Pat Quinn is expected to sign it into law on Nov. 20.

So who’s next? Here’s TIME’s guide to the states most likely to legalize gay marriage in the months ahead.

Hawaii: Any Day Now
Hawaii’s house of representatives approved a bill to legalize gay marriage on Nov. 8, and the state senate will address it this week. Approval is a given — they already passed a similar bill and only need to vote again because of an amendment to the house version. Governor Neil Abercrombie is expected to quickly sign the measure into law — which could potentially leapfrog Hawaii ahead of Illinois in the history books. Whenever that happens, many Hawaiians will have reason to celebrate: 5.1% of the population identifies as LGBT, a higher proportion than any other state with same-sex marriage legislation pending, according to Gallup. (Washington, D.C., where gay marriage is already legal, has the highest proportion of LGBT residents.)

This will bring Hawaii full circle in some ways. The state supreme courtruled 20 years ago that Hawaii’s statute limiting marriage to heterosexual couples was discriminatory and unconstitutional. But in 1998, voters in Hawaii voted for an amendment to limit marriage licenses to same-sex couples. “Hawaii legalizing same-sex marriage will bring an end to a 20-year ordeal,” Wolfson said.

New Mexico: Possibly in Time for a New Year’s Eve Kiss
This Southwest state is the only one in the nation without a law that explicitly allows or bans same-sex marriage. That may soon change. The New Mexico supreme court heard oral arguments on the topic Oct. 23 and is expected to issue a ruling soon, likely before the end of the year. Currently, eight New Mexico counties allow gay couples to marry. More than 900 people have filed for licenses since clerks in those counties started issuing them in the past few months. Two New Mexico judges have upheld same-sex marriage under provisions of the state constitution, giving supporters reason for optimism.

But if the state’s high court does rule in favor, the fight may not be over. Some state Republicans are creating a plan to strike back by pursing a statewide constitutional referendum to ban the unions. “I think the most important thing here is no matter what [the court’s] decision is, the issue will not be settled until the people speak,” state senator Bill Sharer, a Republican who opposes gay marriage, told the Albuquerque Journal.

Oregon: Wait Until Next Election
The Beaver State has a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, though it does recognize ones licensed by other states. The progay marriage organization Oregon United for Marriage is currently collecting signatures to get a referendum overturning that ban on the 2014 ballot.

If that happens, a majority of Oregonians are likely to back it. A poll late last year from Democratic firm Public Policy Polling found that 54% of Oregonians would vote in favor of same-sex marriage.

Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, Utah: Targeting 2016
Activists are hoping to see measures passed or court cases end in their favor in this mix of states by the end of the next presidential election cycle. Though the swing states Ohio and Pennsylvania seem less likely to move than the more liberal coastal states, same-sex marriage is gaining traction in the Midwest. “They used to say you could only win in the coast, not in the heartland,” Wolfson said. “But we’ve won in Minnesota and Iowa. With Illinois, we have 37% of American people living in a freedom-to-marry state, including states in the heartland with more to come.”

Virginia: Tell It to the Judge
Same-sex marriage has been banned in Virginia since 2006, and Old Dominion also doesn’t recognize licenses from other states. But the lawyers who helped to overturn California’s ban in the high-profile U.S. Supreme Court case — David Boies and Ted Olson — agreed to represent two gay men who were denied a marriage license in Norfolk Circuit Court. Having their heft behind, the case has supporters optimistic that Virginia could become the first Southern state to legalize gay marriage.

Newly elected governor Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, supports same-sex marriage and a majority of Virginians support a repeal of the state’s ban, according to a Washington Post poll in May. In the poll, 56% of likely voters opposed the ban, while 33% were in favor.

North Carolina: Pressing the Issue
The Tar Heel State voted last year for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, which passed with 61% of the vote. Lawsuits challenging the ban have been filed, but some government officials aren’t waiting on the courts. Buncombe County Register of Deeds Drew Reisinger accepted applications for marriage licenses from gay couples because he said he was moved by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on DOMA. He was eventually stopped by the state’s attorney general. But support for gay marriage in the state is on the rise: a poll released in September from North Carolina–based Elon University found that 43% of North Carolinians back it, a 5% increase in seven months.

Mississippi, Texas, Tennessee: Not Anytime Soon
Many cases are pending in the Deep South, but it will likely be a few more election cycles before any significant changes are made in these states. In Mississippi, lawyers for a woman who is suing the state in order to divorce her wife (whom she married legally in California) have tried to reassure citizens that they are merely trying to allow gay couples married elsewhere to split, rather than seeking a backdoor to gay marriage in the state.

Same-sex-marriage advocates cite a Human Rights Campaign poll this year, which found that 58% of Mississippi residents under 30 favor gay marriage, as evidence that attitudes in the state are changing. Legislation, however, remains a long shot in the short term.

Attention Christians: I think the Church has failed the gay and lesbian community. Before I dive into that point, I am not here to debate what the Bible says about Homosexuality at this point. I will give conservative Christians the benefit of the doubt that they have rightly divided the word of God. What I am asking is how do we deal with the real people involved. What hope have we given them?

If a hetreosexual couple walks into the church and they are living together, how do we react? In my experience, we welcome them and hope that salt and light will change their hearts. Are we equally open to inviting a gay couple into the church and letting salt and light work on them? Will the members react the same way to two men? Will they be allowed in the nearly newly wed class or a young marrieds Bible study?

Where is the hope? Is it hope to say repent and come to the Lord but leave your partner of 10 years behind? Sure, most gay people do not have partners but what do we do with those that do? What do we do with those people?I hear a lot about loving the sinner and hating the sin. That is true but it is a message that has not gotten across to the gay community. They really think you hate them. You may say their heart is hardened or they are apostate and unable to hear and that is true. Despite that, we have a duty to communicate the Love of Jesus. That is something that the church is not doing very well.We have failed. We have a community of gay and lesbians that feel ostracized by the church. What are we going to do about it?

For everyone who posts that the U.S. was established as a Christian nation please Google the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which was the origin of the notion of separation of church and state. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom is a statement about both
freedom of conscience and the principle of separation of church and
state. Written by Thomas Jefferson and passed by the Virginia General
Assembly on January 16, 1786, it is the forerunner of the first
amendment protections for religious freedom. Divided into three
paragraphs, the statute is rooted in Jefferson's philosophy. It could be
passed in Virginia because Dissenting sects there (particularly
Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists) had petitioned strongly during
the preceding decade for religious liberty, including the separation of
church and state. In other words, the Dissenting sects, particularly those listed in the parentheses, no longer wanted to support a state religion which, in Virginia and many other colonies, had been the Anglican (Episcopalian) Church. It is ironic 200 plus years later to see members of these three sects, particularly Baptists, argue that the founding fathers established a state religion (Christianity) when indeed, they did not. The specifically wanted the government OUT of people's religious life--completely. I realize that this is a small part of our shared American history, but please people, get informed before arguing that our government was founded on religious principles. Quite the contrary, it was founded specifically without religion allowing people to follow their own conscience when it came to their beliefs of lack of beliefs.

I'm for one and SICK and tired of politicians FORCING this insanity on the public. It will take a mob comprised of hundreds of thousands even millions of citizens storming these state houses and stampeding these wicked, corrupt politicians. They were not elected to to visit evils and miseries on the public. Americans in these states should hold a referendum to not pay the taxes that pay this garbage. The public should drive cars, trucks vehicles and hounds through the state legislatures since the politicians enjoy creating zoos. The government is actively at war with the public working to its detriment. Never thought I would ever see this happen. We the public have to take this nation back. What's worse is these politicians are public servants but they behave in ways that make them inaccessible & unaccountable to the public whom they serve. The have been passing these oppressive laws under the cover of darkness & secrecy. These persons are unfit for office. The constitution needs to be amended so that judges can be held accountable to the public. There needs to be a process for which corrupt judges and unjust, biased judges can be removed form local, state and federal benches. The U.S needs to become true democracy answerable to the majorities. Most people don't want these laws vote against them in majorities yet they are introduced repeatedly. We must get money out of the political process lobbying should be made illegal same as campaign contributions which should not exceed $10 dollars per citizen & $20 per organization. Money is the root of all evil so these huge media empires need broken up and dissolved under anti-trust statutes and returned to the people. Most of these are huge corporate empires advancing corrupt agendas and are deeply involved in social engineering. Media corporations are operating well beyond the constitutional powers allotted to the role of "the free press." There needs to be a tightening of control & an exposure of their agenda. How often does the media truly serve as the watchdog of the public interest? When does the media ever expose corruption in the govt. and high places? Where has the media worked for the public interests? When has media ever exposed govt. & corporate policies detrimental to the public? The answer to all of these questions is NO. This nation needs new political parties that represent real REFORM.

The people of this country do not want gay marriage. If you don't believe me then we should put it to a vote as states have done. It is not right that a radical special interest group of people have intimidated and manipulated our government and media and forced a selfish agenda on the majority. And if gay marriage is justified by the basic premise of equality and love, well then we must allow polygamy, incest, pedophilia, and even the passionate love of our animals. Or is gay love more special than these? The voting booth, folks. That is where it should be decided. That is where people won't be subjected to intimidation and name-calling by a radical, selfish minority.

It's also really fantastic to see the victories for equality in Mexico, Costa Rica, Colombia, Brazil, Chile and Argentina. The day when we will have LGBT Equality from Nome to Ushuaia is nearer every day!

Previously in this thread I have provided a small sampling of Organic documents revealing that America was founded and settled by Christian people for Christian purposes. These early Americans not only required those in government to be Christian, but established their governments "according to God" and with Christian principles. It should be noted that none of these documents were church or missionary documents, but rather are civil or political documents, written and signed by civil or political authorities to establish a form of government.

and SCOTUS rulings have confirmed that "...this is a Christian Nation..." and that "...We are a Christian People...".

Not only is the content and meaning of these documents no longer taught in school, many seem convinced of a meaning that is expedient and prudent to their cause with no supporting documentation. To those the meaning of the First Article of the Amendment is to allow and promote the practice of any religion while barring religion in affairs of our government. Totally "secular" if you prefer.

Early writings and opinions DO NOT support this.

For consideration I present the opinion of Judge Joseph Story, a Harvard Law School Professor and a United States Supreme Court Justice from 1811 - 1845 from his work "Commentaries on the Constitution":

"The real object of the (First) amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age...".

As I am a resident of Mississippi I was surprised to see them on here, but the 58% number didn't surprise me. There is a huge divide both between generations, and what people say out loud versus what they think in private. Converse to most states, you're actually rewarded for being a bigot in public, so oddly, representatives will endorse bigoted policies that both they and a large number of their constituents don't actually support (whereas it seems it most states people are bigoted behind closed doors but tolerant in public). Just look at the personhood amendment, which the majority of the residents of the state voted against even though almost EVERY politician supported it!! People will condemn gays and drug use in public, and then go home and smoke weed and prepare to lead their daughter down the aisle at her gay wedding. Young people come from more of a libertarian than liberal bent when supporting gay marriage. They are far from liberals and may be extremely conservative about everything else, but they hate the government and think it should "stay out of people's business." They are less religious and don't see any damnation from God falling upon the state for sin.

It's really heartening to see the groundswell of support for equality in Illinois and Hawaii. And I'm very much looking forward to the state Supreme Court decision in New Mexico and Idaho. We have great reason to believe that our country will one day be free of the homophobic bigotry that the ultra right has made into a pillar of their political platform. Shame on them for being narrow minded bigots. Shame on them for being un-American.

Having posted in this thread regarding the subject of our Nations Christian roots, I have stated my position and then backed up my claims.

It is understood that we have no National Religion or Church.

SCOTUS rulings have confirmed that "...this is a Christian Nation..." and that "...We are a Christian People...".

(See: Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892 and

United States v. Macintosh, 1931 )

Whether you agree or disagree these are settled U.S. Supreme Court cases.

My concern comes from the select few who can only tell me I am wrong with NO supporting evidence. Today my " distractor" in this thread, who in my opinion despises all things Christian, posted about the fall of the Roman Empire. Post in part"...it came about after Christians took over the government and imposed ideological homogeneity as a criterion for civil service."

I have NO opinion about the Fall of the Empire. Limited research suggests a host of possible reasons. Prof. Roberto De Mattei claimed in 2011 that the Empire fell due to"Sexual Perversion".

My point here is just as I would ask the Prof. Roberto to backup his claim I ask the same of my "distractor".

My premise here is unchanged. While you may not believe in GOD or share my Spiritual faith , your right to do so, the influence of Christianity regarding the founding of our Nation can not be denied. I invite any reader to study for themselves!

The proof is in the documents. Remember that Fish Discover Water LAST.

From the CONSTITUTION OF PENNSYLVANIA - 1776 (Sources 1)

....SECT. 10. ..House of Representatives oath: "I do believe in one God, the creator and government of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration."

and

The CONSTITUTION OF NORTH CAROLINA - 1776

FORM OF GOVERNMENT, &C. (Sources 1 )

"...XXXII. That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State..."

Still laying the foundation that this country was established on Christian foundations and Principles:

From the CHARTER OF PRIVILEGES GRANTED BY WILLIAM PENN, ESQ. TO THE INHABITANTS OF PENNSYLVANIA AND

TERRITORIES, 1701 :

"...and that all Persons who also profess to believe in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the World, shall be capable (notwithstanding their other Persuasions and Practices in Point of Conscience and Religion) to serve this Government in any Capacity, both legislatively and executively ..."

I understand this Country has no established religion or Church and you have the right NOT to believe as I do in matters of personal Faith.

Please research, read and then decide for yourself. As usual any credible documentation you provide will be researched by me. I understand, some in particular, keep telling me I am wrong yet provide no proof.

One thing that many fail to realize about the fall of the Roman Empire: it came about after Christians took over the government and imposed ideological homogeneity as a criterion for civil service. The following centuries, often referred to as the Dark Ages, are the best example we have of government founded on principles of Christianity.

The US was founded in direct opposition to the monarchs who had for centuries fused religion and politics. In other words, kicking religion out of politics was the way we emerged from the Dark Ages. What's exciting about marriage equality is that it is one more step away from theocracy, one more sign that we won't allow right wing religious kooks to drag us back into the Dark Ages.

There is no basis for Christianity regarding the establishment of our country?? -- Really... Or was it "Right Wingers" (lol) that established this Great nation?

How about Excerpts from Letters Patent to Sir Humfrey Gylberte - 1578:

...to live together In Christian peace and civil quietnesse each with other...

...that they be not against the true Christian faith or religion ...

Or THE FIRST CHARTER OF VIRGINIA - 1606

"We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government."

Or THE SECOND CHARTER OF VIRGINIA - 1609

"AND forasmuch as it shall be necessary for all such our loving Subject as shall inhabit within the said Precincts of Virginia aforesaid, to determine to live together in the Fear and true Worship of Almighty God, Christian Peace and Civil Quietness each with other."

Or THE THIRD CHARTER OF VIRGINIA - 1611-12

"WHEREAS at the humble Suit of divers and sundry our loving Subjects, as well Adventurers as Planters of the first Colony in Virginia, and for the Propagation of Christian Religion ..."

Or THE CHARTER OF NEW ENGLAND - 1620

"We according to our princely Inclination, favouring much their worthy Disposition, in Hope thereby to advance the enlargement of Christian Religion, to the Glory of God Almighty,..."

Or in 1620 "The Mayflower Compact" , the first legal document forming a government that was written by individual settlers:

"IN the Name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, ... Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour if our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia."

Again I understand the United States does not have a Government Sponsored religion . My concern is those that do no research and try to pass off to the masses their uninformed personal opinions as the ultimate truth.

Please research for yourself. These documents can be located so that YOU may read them in their entirety and in context as I encourage YOU to do.

The sky is falling the sky is falling.....where's my Bible, God said what I told you he said.....no I can't find it in the Bible.....stop bullying me!!!!! Sick of these right wing extremists....remember WWII was started by right wing extremists....they began with one segment of society and taught hate about them, then another, then another.......sounds frighteningly familiar here.....stop them now!!

Once again we see that this is a topic that attracts religious kooks in droves, those who demand that our country conform to their narrow minded and bigoted religious beliefs. Thankfully, ours is a country founded on the principle that all are free to pursue their faith, including those with no faith at all. Separation of church and state isn't just a founding principle of American democracy, it also represents one of our country's greatest contributions to the free world.

It makes me very sad that West Virginia (my home state) Isn't anywhere on this list.. Not even in the "not any time soon" section.. Guess that just goes to show we will probably be one of the very last states to join ranks. The West Virginia motto "Mountaineers are always free" obviously does not apply to its LGBT community.

My interest in this topic began when I saw statements to the effect that our Country was in no way founded upon Christianity, a belief I shared in the past.

Long before the Internet I engaged in research to prove that position, because after all, I had the Treaty with Tripoli which states in part: Article XI..".As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." ( more on this later).

I kept finding documents that forced me to reach a differing conclusion based upon overwhelming evidence, and very few supporting my original premise.

Examples:

Updegraph v Commonwealth, (1824)-Supreme Court PA

Updegraph claimed in part: "That the Holy Scriptures were a mere fable: that they were a contradiction, and that although they contained a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies."

It was also claimed that "...the federal Constitution had done away with it- -that Christianity was no longer part of the law."

Part of the Court's ruling: "...We will first dispose of what is considered the grand objection--the constitutionality of Christianity--for, in effect, that is the question. Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law . . . not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church ... but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."

and at the SCOTUS level --United States v. Macintosh -1931-

at Page 283 U. S. 625: "... We are a Christian people...".

As for the Treaty of Tripoli: A treaty with a nation founded on the Muslim religion that was fighting with other nations founded on the Christian religion. If memory serves correctly a later re- ratification of this Treaty did not contain the Article XI language. And when you take ONE article out of context.. Please do your own research.

Which brings me to a main thought, I am NOT asking you to believe me or one of my main distractors, please RESEARCH for YOURSELF!

Prior to the Internet I obtained a "short list" of over -60- references from the late 1500's into the 1900's.

The list includes letters, charters, State Constitutions and SCOTUS rulings ALL supporting we ARE founded on Christian principles and values.

This is my premise. If you can provide Court rulings and documents refuting this I will listen and research. Your list would need to be lengthy and refer to the founding of our Country and roughly the first 150 years.

When you get into the late 1940's and the Warren Court of the 1960's things do start changing.

Final thoughts: I know we do not have a state sponsored Religion. I also know that General Christianity is at our roots. If you have ample proof otherwise I would love to see it for research.

And If as my distractor all you can say is that I am wrong while providing no or limited support, well, save your breath. Remember you are disagreeing with COURT rulings and not me!

How much longer will the right wing religious kooks try to claim their superstitions as a basis for our shared civil law? If they want to hate gays, burn crosses and keep women tied to stoves in bare feet, let them compete against others with better ideas, especially those with better ideas that happen to be admissible in court! LOL

@DowgWalker Then I guess you think they should remove "Land of the Free" from anything descirbing the USA since all people wouldn't be treated equal under the Government of the United States. Give that title to The Netherlands (where marijuana is also legal). Or Canada, Brazil, South Africa, United Kingdom, Belgium etc...

And there is a big difference between telling someone who is born gay they can't marry vs. telling someone who wants to marry an animal they can't...And if you left it up to a state vote you could add states like Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana to the list. Sure, it wouldn't pass in the deep south (yet)...that's fine, they have smaller populations so the majority of the country would have it legal in the next few years. And a majority of people under the age of 40 support it, including young Republicans. Every 4 years a new crop of 18-21 year olds who are increasingly socially liberal regardless of their political affiliation join voting age. So it will be legalized everywhere eventually, by popular vote or not.

All these posts reveal is that you never took history in high school. The UK wanted colonies here so that they could steal from the Spanish. They sent the religious dissidents because they were no longer needed in England's war against Spain. The British colonies in North America were purely commercial. You would know that had you paid attention in school.

Looks like you could use some history classes. The charters for the Virginia colony were corporate, based in a royal charter of a company whose sole intent was the extraction of profit for shareholders. Back to school for you!

Unfortunately, right wing religious extremists such as yourself do a great disservice to those who support the true American dream: that we all are free to pursue any faith we wish, including those who do not believe in any faith at all. God bless our country, which puts an impenetrable wall between church and state.

@TrayAndrews@DowgWalkerpolygamy is a group it has no legitimacy & it requires the degradation of others especially women/children who are deprived of basic human rights. Polygamy is a form of slavery where people are brainwashed or threatened into group sex & other soul crushing destructive behaviors. It creates powerlessness in the women & others who engage in it. Those who practice it should just consider themselves married to their co-workers.

@BeatlesMysteryTourlook here a country where govt. spies on its citizens, takes bribe money from lobbyist to craft special laws which benefit a few and hurt hundreds of millions has nothing to do with "Land of the free." A govt. which is in every school house pushing propaganda, in every bedroom telling people what they can and can't do or say. A govt. regulating speech takes away "freedom of speech" A govt. regulating religion takes away "freedom of conscious, belief & creed." A govt. telling people what they can learn, declaring who can get married or who can have sex or be employed is a govt. that is out of bounds. A govt. that has usurped the role of the church in a system originally designed to honor the boundaries of CHURCH and the separation between Church & State. As for you yip yahooing about govt. overpowering the will of the people and forcing laws on them this can go both ways. Moves like this made by the govt. equate to tyranny. It could be just as easy for the govt. to decide to begin murdering citizens---homosexuals included. Marriage, parenting, the family and social exchange have are areas that belongs to the jurisdiction of the CHURCH not the State. The govt. the state has declared WAR on the church working to undermine it or make it seem antiquated. The church is the guardian of mores---NOT academia and certainly NOT the govt. neither county, city, state or federal govts. have the authority to interfere in the social & personal lives of citizens with any kind of regulation. The govt. has become oppressive and no people will endure tyranny.

@BeatlesMysteryToura govt. that spies on citizens removing all privacy is not land of the free. A govt. which is in every bedroom, every school house and every home telling people what the can & cannot eat what they should say, what they should learn, who should get married, who can be employed, who can have sex, how people should parent. A govt. which undermines parental authority with regard to allowing children unauthorized medicine & surgeries w/o parental consent in the name of sex. Indeed,a govt. that promotes sexual promiscuity to children. Govt. that promotes homosexuality & AIDS to children, legalization of dangerous drugs etc, etc. People are NOT born gay there is NO scientific basis to any such claims. Homosexuality is nothing but a destructive LIE that must be rejected. Its an abnormal sexual disorder.

Wywatch this is something I do not normally do. As I scan thru the posts I see YOU insulting, correcting and slamming anyone who disagrees with you or simply professes Christianity.

Any comeback you interpret as an insult and try to slam the commenter. From that point I expect you must have the last word which I will gladly concede to you.

While I will grant you have some education most of your replies appear as that of an errant child, "waa..I'm right and your wrong..waa". Claims made with zero documentation or authority. (Little content and even les context.)

Instant proof: Your comment about the Colonies, some truth, but lets hear from William Bradford as to one of the reasons the pilgrims left Holland and came to America:

"Lastly, (and which was not least) a great hope, and inward zeall they had of laying some good foundation, (or at least to make some way therunto) for the propagating, and advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world; yea, though they should be but even as stepping-stones, unto others for the performing of so great a work. " William Bradford, "History Of Plymouth Plantation: 1620 - 1647," Vol. 1, The Massachusetts Historical Society, (Boston-1912), p. 55.

Oops.. "advancing the gospel of the kingdom of Christ"

Lastly yourself and your "minions" will understand this:

You have not made any points. Not only have I have eaten your Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner, I have your lunch money for the month.

Evan in my opinion we are wasting our efforts on a "Self Proclaimed Hero". I posted some information to encourage others to research for themselves, while it will take time to read the decisions in their entireity.

The bigoted behavior encountered here is almost unreal. Stay well Evan.

Uh, no. You can't claim that your homophobic bigotry has any basis in our legal system so you resort to nonsense definitions that only make sense to right wing religious kooks. You're an amateur and you're on the wrong side of history. Learn to argue civil law in secular terms or step aside.

@Joe's_Garage@bobinexile If anyone came out of the atheist closet then & now, they'd be exiled by the hateful, ignorant religious radicals who are so jealous that people who are happy without a god are actually happier than those with one :) You do not understand history as it was.

Please post some Court Rulings that support your claim! You keep telling me I am wrong, where is your proof? Court Rulings please. I have many Court rulings in support of my claim. (Some posted. Some from SCOTUS ) Facts and undeniable TRUTH are on my side.

Sorry, you really should consider going back and taking a high school level history class. If you did, you might learn that England had shipped their religious dissidents to Holland, which was ruled by Spain at the time. Once William of Orange succeeded in his revolt, the dissidents were no longer needed, or wanted, in Holland. Nor were they wanted in England. The solution? Ship them to America, where they'd starve to death, which is mostly what happened to them. Or have you never asked yourself why there is no Puritan church in the US today?

The quote you shared is but a sample of the raving lunacy of these religious fanatics who were being shipped off to what was, in effect, a penal colony. The British colonies chartered by the crown were several hundred miles south, where the weather was warmer and they could establish privateering bases to steal from the Spanish.

See what a difference it makes to actually know something about history? Sorry, but your posts are almost uniformly laughable. You are but a modern day fanatic.

What about the stupidity of repeatedly posting jibberish? Or of cryptic references to opaque terms like "conflation"? I presume that if you had a point to make, you would have made it by now. All I get from your posts is that you don't consider LGBT people, or their marriages, to be the equal of yours. It's your right to hold such a belief, but you've done very little to show why others might want to agree with you.

We feel sorry for those who, like you, refuse to accept that freedom of conscience includes the right to be free of religion. This is the basic principle on which our country was founded. I'm sorry you hate American values so much that you want to change the most fundamental of our country's founding principles.

By the way, the accusation of bigotry is both necessary and sufficient for the success of a claim that argues the equal protection clause. It appears that you fail to grasp this judicial fact. It may be the case that claims of bigotry are all we have. If you had any understanding of the law, you'd know that such a claim is all we need.

Oh, and our goal is not to convince you but, rather, to defeat you. I think we're doing a fine job!

Your claim about the special nature of heterosexual relationships is lifted directly from Roman Catholic cannon law. Nice try. Also, your point about evolution argues against you, as higher order vertebrates are social and their sociality has a direct impact on the continuance of their societies. Perhaps you would have learned that had you not gone to a school that threw away class time teaching creationism.

I haven't used any religious arguments. Point to one such argument. I've invoked evolution, not religion. Do you think "right-wing kooks" believe in evolution?

You don't have any actual arguments. You just have accusations of bigotry. That is all your side has. Intimidation is your only argument. This is why you keep trying to change my mind by telling me I'm on the wrong side of history. That statement should have no place here because where history takes us is not necessarily truth. Note that communists love saying they are on the right side of history. They have no actual argument so they keep asserting that over and over again. "We'll win therefore you should let us win". Its funny how stupid you are.

@bobinexile Have you read the follow-up of SCOTUS Chief Justice Brewer in Holy Trinity Church v. United States? He wholly contradicts your claimsYou might also want to educated yourself on the historical process and context of America. Yes, nearly every colony had an established state religion prior to the Constitution being implemented. And our Constitution negates every one of those claims you raise, as Justice Brewer highlights. A prime authority (THE authority?), David Holmes writes in Faith of Our Founding Fathers of the many different non-Christian leanings of the founders. Not only is the historical culture of America more diverse than you perceive, our culture and ideals are not synonymous, in fact, we have often had to go against tradition and culture in order to further our ideas.

@wywatch_ @bobinexile There was no need for judicial review of the Treaty as it was passed unanimously and none ever challenged it in court. It follows that there is ZERO mention of a deity in any of our charters of freedom, other than the "Creator" as offered in the Declaration of Independence, written in by Jefferson who was decidedly non-Christian in his belief system. He appreciated Christ as an example of virtue, but rejected all miracles subscribed to Jesus. There is strong evidence than none of the first five presidents could be considered Christian in the modern sense. Unitarian, yes, but that is not actually Christian as it is thought of today (no miracles, no virgin birth, no son of god, nada). Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin are also prime examples of non-Christian founders. So, how can a country be considered to be created in the name of one religion, when it's actual founding was made up of anything but a single belief system?

1. None of the cases you present establishes the US as a Christian country. Not one. There is no basis for your bizarre claim. Taking bits of text out of context doesn't make your case, as you might have learned had you stayed in school.

2. Judicial review is not required to ratify a treaty. You might have learned this also had you simply stayed in school.

Rambling, ranting and insulting others is not a way to make your case. "Organic utterances" doesn't have any meaning outside your little tin foil hat world. Sorry.

"People keep telling you that you're wrong because you are in fact mistaken." Wywatch, oh the rambling Wywatch! You said it ..."Posting a bunch of court rulings with which people may not be familiar...". The NOT FAMILIAR part is what concerns me about you.

There are many, many cases, if anyone is curious don't believe WyWatch or myself please do your own research.. And it will take time as there are so many cases and writings!

You want a ..."SCOTUS review"... And then you state "Never, ever going to happen because there is no such case..."

SCOTUS case:

Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

Partial text of Supreme Court Justice David Brewer from this case: "...we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian nation – in fact, as the leading Christian nation of the world..."

Or for the "purists":

These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. 143 U.S. 457 (1892)[3]

From Constitutional law professor Edward Mansfield (1801-1880) :

"...Christianity is the original, spontaneous, and national religion..."

I researched most of this long before the Internet. The information is,out there, please research it.

People keep telling you that you're wrong because you ar in fact mistaken. Posting a bunch of court rulings with which people may not be familiar is not helping your case. You need to show a legal thread from start to finish (meaning SCOTUS review)and establish that the thread defines our country in religious terms.

Never, ever going to happen because there is no such case and because our country was defined quite purposely as secular. From the very start.

Now, if you have something to say about our secular, civil laws, your comment will be welcomed. Otherwise, we will continue to dismiss your comments as those from a tin foil hat wearer.

This treaty lacks one requirement from another poster, Judicial review.

Here is another court ruling, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892, and another, Lindenmuller v. The People, 1860.

How about rulings from 1799 or 1811? How about letters , charters and State Constitutions from the 1500's , 1600's, 1700's and 1800's? You seem concerned about " modern" rulings. In fact it takes up to about 1947 for any type of leverage to support we are moving away from a Christian Nation.

I have proof from before, during and after the founding of our nation.

Do you have any others than the Treaty that lacks judicial review?

I am amazed at those telling me I am wrong! Please argue with the Courts! The last poster at least did some research on his own and found the -1- Treaty ( lacking Judicial review) that supports some claims. NOT a very strong argument though.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

I don't care about modern day court rulings. The above was ratified unanimously by the US Senate, by the founding fathers themselves.

Beyond that, we are a secular nation with secular laws that establish a very intentional separation between church and state. Despite whatever claims those espousing us as being some theocracy-but-not-quite would have you believe.